Jump to content
 

Miss Prism

Members
  • Posts

    7,735
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Miss Prism

  1. Lovely work, Tom. You need a photoplank to show them off, in the style of Adrian Marks.
  2. Great. (I couldn't quite detect the detail in some of the pics.)
  3. Oh dear, 1369 has re-aquired green tank fronts!
  4. Nice job. The kit betrays its age, and the roof has a nasty contour. Btw, the E116 had fishbelly bogies. (The K's kit, as supplied, does contain them.)
  5. 'Gloucester', for a box made by Gloucester Railway Carriage and Wagon Company.
  6. Not sure I believe the upper drawing of the E19 - look at the compartment spacings of the side elevation view. Here's an E19: https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwr-mra453.htm
  7. Yes, three E40 pairs. Perhaps one was a spare, being cleaned, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were used on the Falmouth branch, or perhaps the Newquay-St Blazey services.
  8. Here's an E40 pair sandwiching a shorter coach (6-wheeler brake compo?) at Carbis Bay. It is c pre-1913, because of the lack of loco topfeed, so the stock is either in brown or possibly crimson lake. Loco and stock are very clean and shiny, but the coach rooves are already a dull grey.
  9. An E40 pair was often used on the St Ives branch. This pic is 1928. Not sure when the E40s disappeared, but E116s and of course (later) the ubiquitous E140s predominated.
  10. I need to reboot that activity - istr getting a bit lost in the Hornby Collett 4000g variants.
  11. Judging by the compartment spacing, I think they are an E40 pair, i.e. a 'B-set' (two brake compos). The inward/outward guard's doors is an interesting quirk - never noticed that before - but it seems the official diagrams are not consistent. I wonder what's on the Worsley etch!
  12. I think it's a lubricator for the vacuum pump. The mounting and position seem to have varied, with many being in a more forward position, like the one on 2999. This one, on 2901, has an inverted U-shaped mount.
  13. I immediately assumed the coaches were E40, which were quite common in the far west country, but D16 looks like a reasonable fit. I'd go with an E40 assumption though, judging the spacing of the 1st compartment and the other compartments. (D16 not having a 1st compartment, of course.) Either way, the date is post-1895, which is rather late for an 850 loco to still have its Wolverhampton chimney and toolbox.
  14. Tender is slightly odd, with it seems a scratchbuilt Churchward flush-riveted body. It was uncommon to see Granges with late crest Churchward tenders. I understood a new Collett 3500g would be produced for 6880, which is more usual for the class. Maybe the tender they are using has been borrowed (from 3814?).
  15. Dapol is not doing a 81xx afaik. The '8101' being advertised by Rails is actually 5101. Did all the 81xxs receive lined green or only some of them?
  16. Are you thinking of a situation where access to/from the factory siding relies on the bay being vacant or the bay not being vacant?
  17. I've just noticed the Saints had narrow cabs!
  18. I like the idea of lime private owners, but it's a odd look with the tarpaulins. (i.e. not 'boxed in', like later wagons)
  19. Ooo, err. Very odd and confusing. There's nothing like that extension on the official drawings as far as I can see. It must be something to do with the new cylinder castings. (I assume the cylinders are still in the same longitudinal 'place'.)
×
×
  • Create New...